|
| Thread: Immortality and the definition of life |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 10, 2009 04:30 PM |
|
|
@ Death
"Not needed" is actually not the same as useless, Death, and that is so freaking obvious that I shouldn't have to write this.
@ Doom
Quote:
It's not elitist. It's the truth.
It's not. It's just your point of view. You are certainly not some god who can determine whether the life of humans or a certain kind of human or part of humanity is worth to be lived out longer or not - doing so is assuming.
Quote:
I don't see anything wrong in calling mine or my neighbor's life problems petty. Global wise, they are extremely petty.
"Global-wise"? How about "galaxy-wise"? I don't see, what "global-wise" has to do with the point. Who cares about "global-wise"? Global-wise basically everything is petty. Earth is supposedly 4 billion years old - compared to that, what is a human life-span?
However, it's not petty for the humans.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 10, 2009 04:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Not needed" is actually not the same as useless, Death, and that is so freaking obvious that I shouldn't have to write this.
For me it is the same thing 
Quote:
However, it's not petty for the humans.
JJ, the decision for immortality is a global issue, not a personal issue. Humans and their emotions ARE irrational, most cases, they even ignore statistics.
What about if terrorists hijack a plane and want to crash into some big building or something? Are you going to shoot the plane down, considering there aren't any other alternatives?
I don't think the humans in the plane will agree with your decision, but then again, they cannot think GLOBALLY or OBJECTIVELY, so yes, their choice would naturally favor themselves. You don't let family members investigate a family crime for the same reason, because people can't freaking think well enough in emotional circumstances.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2009 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are certainly not some god who can determine whether the life of humans or a certain kind of human or part of humanity is worth to be lived out longer or not - doing so is assuming.
Sure it is my opinion, well, isn't it what I underlined?  ? With an "imho" or something?
Quote:
"Global-wise"? How about "galaxy-wise"? I don't see, what "global-wise" has to do with the point. Who cares about "global-wise"? Global-wise basically everything is petty. Earth is supposedly 4 billion years old - compared to that, what is a human life-span?
However, it's not petty for the humans.
TheDeath said it: immortality isn't just a problem of me, you or our neighbors. It's something that would either be global, or be for elite only (which is unjust and unfair.). And if it's global, we have to apply global logic to it, isn't it? Like, it would cause overpopulation (assuming people would still get kids, and I'm sure people wouldn't want to give up on that..). Much like pollution, which is a global problem. For you or me, it doesn't matter whether we dump garbage in the forest, but globally it's a problem.
Immortality would be also a problem like that: it wouldn't concern us, perhaps, but it would concern whole humanity. And aren't we supposed to think about too, not just our own noses? For our own sake?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2009 06:44 PM |
|
|
Nobody truly deserves it anymore than anybody else. I bet once it's discovered, there will be war over the secret of immortality (should we ever completely discover it anyway) and only the rich elite will live forever while the commoners are put under martial law...
It's just another extension of human greed.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2009 07:05 PM |
|
|
Longevity is the same problem, globally. People are getting 3 times as old now than a couple thousand years ago, causing overpopulation - shall we go back to dying with 25 or 30 on average?
Doing away with wars is leading to overpopulation as well - shall we go back to decimating population with wars again then?
We won't become immortal SUDDENLY anyway - we'll probably just live longer, and dying, for example from accident, will always be possible.
Who knows, maybe we find a way to cross the void to other stars and planets, in that case overpopulation might not be a factor anymore.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 10, 2009 07:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nobody truly deserves it anymore than anybody else. I bet once it's discovered, there will be war over the secret of immortality (should we ever completely discover it anyway) and only the rich elite will live forever while the commoners are put under martial law...
It's just another extension of human greed.
The same discoveries happen from multiple sources. Companies don't always share their products, but other people figure out how to replicate it without direct assistance. In a far more authoritarian system it might be possible to lock-down down on such innovations, but in today's world this is extremely difficult.
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted September 10, 2009 07:47 PM |
|
|
I have come to a programatic conclusion, hope im not hated for being a practical man.
BEGIN
IF (life is like a box of chocolates)
THEN
eternal life is like a box of eternal chocolates ;
AND IF(eternal = endless AND inmortal = eternal AND sack is similar to box)
THEN
inmortality is like a sack of endless chocolates.
END
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 10, 2009 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Longevity is the same problem, globally. People are getting 3 times as old now than a couple thousand years ago, causing overpopulation - shall we go back to dying with 25 or 30 on average?
Doing away with wars is leading to overpopulation as well - shall we go back to decimating population with wars again then?
Or B: Start my forcing India to stop making babies like a plague is on, etc.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2009 10:06 PM |
|
|
Their government doesn't have any real control over it, you know.
How can you order a simple peasant to stop "producing" kids?
Especially with their inner chaos.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
sith_of_ziost
Promising
Supreme Hero
Scouting the Multiverse
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 03:38 AM |
|
|
It is capitally immoral to force the halt of procreation on the populace. It is like denying a bird its migration. Even though it is excessive to produce more than what you can support, it is not wrong to do so. In some cases, it is dangerous to all, which then governmental force might need to be applied. But to be denied their original power to reproduce is tantamount to playing god.
Immortality is a concept far too shrouded in mystery to consider a widely accepted option. Who knows how the human mind will adapt to a lifespan with no limit? Mental disorder will run rampant after 150, i'm betting. The reason why humans aren't immortal is the same reason we were created to age: human existence is a set interval in history. Sure, postponing inevitable shutdown is a prospect lucrative to many humans, but in the end, life will end in one way or another. In my beliefs, immortality cannot be attained by any means of science.
Now to express not so critical thoughts. I believe that immortality is not in our grasp, but that does not mean to stop searching for it. Along the way, miraculous discoveries are bound to made, despite the impossibility of the goal. And no man knows the true answer. Immortality could also be possible. Aging is a natural process, but so is the flow of a river. If we can control that, than there is reason to suspect other cycles of nature can also be slowed or inhibited.
All in all, the prospect of life is defined by its finity.
____________
Steel Yourself for War
Next Set: Mirrodin
Beseiged
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 04:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It is capitally immoral to force the halt of procreation on the populace. It is like denying a bird its migration. Even though it is excessive to produce more than what you can support, it is not wrong to do so. In some cases, it is dangerous to all, which then governmental force might need to be applied. But to be denied their original power to reproduce is tantamount to playing god.
What the hell are you talking about? It is preventing something, rather than making it happen. A simple "rule". There's nothing "god-like" in there or "playing god" -- it's not like having children is inevitable or "something that must happen", it is an enforced choice. You make it sound something that it is not.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 05:33 AM |
|
|
It's also completely unnecessary. Excluding the immigrant populations, North America, Europe, and northwestern Asia all have decreasing populations. Surprise surprise; government authoritarianism is retarded, unneeded, and would only aggravate people. You want to decrease the population in other places as well? Let them industrialize and I'll give it a 99/100 chance that the future generations will have less children. China uses population control, but it's important to note that while China always had a large population, it experienced a surge during the reign of Mao because he instigated people to have massive amounts of kids because he believed a high population directly translated to a successful economy. So China is fixing a problem that partially rose up due to the government to begin with.
Also, it's funny that people are so gung ho about blaming places like Africa or India because of their population density. Do you honestly think they're the reason our planet is burdened right now? lol. Eight Africans in poverty don't equal the amount of trash and energy that a single Westerner spews out of their household.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 10:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's also completely unnecessary. Excluding the immigrant populations, North America, Europe, and northwestern Asia all have decreasing populations. Surprise surprise; government authoritarianism is retarded, unneeded, and would only aggravate people. You want to decrease the population in other places as well? Let them industrialize and I'll give it a 99/100 chance that the future generations will have less children. China uses population control, but it's important to note that while China always had a large population, it experienced a surge during the reign of Mao because he instigated people to have massive amounts of kids because he believed a high population directly translated to a successful economy. So China is fixing a problem that partially rose up due to the government to begin with.
Also, it's funny that people are so gung ho about blaming places like Africa or India because of their population density. Do you honestly think they're the reason our planet is burdened right now? lol. Eight Africans in poverty don't equal the amount of trash and energy that a single Westerner spews out of their household.
Well the africans at the least follows the "many born, lots die" principal. When Europa hit the industrial revolution and we suddenly could do something with the insane death rate, we skyrocketed.
China hit this, the reason they are doing the "1 child each" is because they know there is no chance the 1 child will die. During the dark ages you had 5-6 kids and 1-2 of the survived if you had luck. China is overpopulated and thus they need a negative birth rate to reach a stable population.
India on the other hand got it really weird. MANY MANY MANY kids being born, but i would say that about 80% of them survive. This creates a population boom with no equals, and it has been for some time. Something needs to be done.
Africa however needs to just stabilze, there is no big baby boom over there. Just to much disease, and nobody bothers to actually go for full use of condoms.
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 01:35 PM |
|
|
Just a thought I had, let's assume 2 things and out of these 2 things I believe eternal life could be granted.
1) Assume that we're uniquely defined through something in our brain (something the cells do, etc.).
Which means if the mechanism the cells do for exactly you're reproduced in another body, there'd be 2 bodies, but 1 mind.
2) Assume that we learn to teleport the way it's thought of to begin with, splitting your body into small enough particles that can be accelerated to near-light speed and then recollected perfectly, or so perfectly that the mechanisms that uniquely defines you're reproduced.
Now why would these 2 things make eternal life possible? Well first of all, making your particles automatic reassemble means that no matter what hits you, you can always reassemble, as nothing can destroy your particles (sure everything has a half-time, but then there could be backups etc., use your imagination). Secondly if we then let time pass to infinite, due to the laws of entropy the universe will become like a desert in the meaning that energy will be shattered across so only particles will remain and it will be very empty. However as it goes with entropy, it's a process of probability and as there's a probability, a very very small one, that everything will be recollected at one point (or more likely lots of stuff recollected at several points) and you let infinite time pass, it has to happen, because the probability is not zero. This literally means a new big bang and as we've programmed the particles of us to reassemble (with backups, basicly one particle could interact with enough others and create a new body) you'd be recreated as you were before, being exactly the same, after some billions of years (if not more).
The point of this is, that you'd basicly life forever, there'd be long periods of "slumber", but none the less you'd always come back, and only be aware of the time you're there.
I'm not going to do a quote fest, but I've some comments on what have been written:
@Doomforge
The question is not if it needs, it is if you want.
Beside I read what you're writing a lot like what you wrote in this thread:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=30818&pagenumber=3
Note how you write you want to live the life you want and no one shall come and tell you something else, and then you tell others something else?
We're not all emotion dependent, for me, life is about to live, and not what my emotions tells me, not what experiences/adventures I can make, I don't need or want excuses for being alive.
Not even to say, if you're are afraid of your emotion, afraid to become bored, then travel space, sleep for what you like, in principle it's not much different, now you play computer games when you're bored and your emotions tells you what to do, but you're 1 person, you'll never be able to play all computer games as long as the amount of computer games rises faster than you can complete one.
Though it's okay to be scared of your emotions, don't put this belief down on others please.
For your second post, no it's not the truth, because you assume that emotions are what defines people in the first place, which makes it false, since it's not the case for everyone.
Secondly you do again write about what is needed, need is not the question, the question is what is wanted.
Quote:
And because it's such a hard task, even if possible, it would have to take lots of money and time, both of which could be used elsewhere: for beating AIDS for instance.
So you'd rather beat AIDS then live forever? If you live forever AIDS cannot exist, otherwise you wouldn't. I agree it'd take a lot of hard work, but it's the ultimate goal of medical research.
Quote:
Not to mention the problems it would bring. Feeling of inequality, and if everyone could attain it, the world would simply become completely uninhabitable because of extremely severe cause of overpopulation.
First of all, if we live forever you cannot get in problem with overpopulation in relation to your health, that makes no sense.
However I do understand your point, but don't you think we'd travel space honestly? Space is vast, probably enough room for all of us.
Quote:
And of course artists and scientists would benefit more from extended life. They would give much to humanity. Their life isn't any more important, but would give us much more if they could live longer, of that I'm sure.
Peoples life aren't valued in what they contribute to society, we're all equal important.
The circle of life is like immortality of a society, we're individuals, and it's the individual that counts.
Who cares about usefulness? We've this society thing going for a reason, it's because in the long run it's better for all of us individually than if we lived each man for himself, and nothing is better for the individual than ultimate freedom and security, which eternal life grants, if you want it of course.
If you live forever why would you be sitting in an office, working?
Quote:
Immortality would be also a problem like that: it wouldn't concern us, perhaps, but it would concern whole humanity. And aren't we supposed to think about too, not just our own noses? For our own sake?
Again you can easily imply immortality without having to be concerned of global problems, it's after all immortality we're talking about, you're not really bound anymore.
@TheDeath
The internet part is incorrect, it originates from CERN, and was original an idea to share information fast and easy.
Secondly, what is useless research is for us all to find out, not only you.
Quote:
By the way there should be this rule if we ever achieve immortality, called "You can't have kids and become immortal at the same time", making it illegal. It's not like we don't have enough overpopulation as it is.
I've answered this point several times, why it makes no sense in a world where we live forever that we should have problems with overpopulation, I'm not going to answer it again, read my previous posts.
Quote:
Immortality is far from being an Utopia though -- I would consider getting rid of all mundane jobs the first step, or automatizing them.
Good idea. Automatizing work is something I think would be a great benefit, though capitalism could get in trouble, the real question would be, what do we need money for, if we automatizise so we do not need money I think this could work. Though it belongs to another thread.
@JollyJoker
Good posts, I agree completely, you say it very accurate.
Though one thing, I believe the only reason war helps against overpopulation is not because people get murdered, it's because war is one of the things that really force the society to produce in a much higher speed, making technology advance very fast, and thereby after the war, new solutions have appeared.
So if war wasn't about all the killing, but had another goal (like the space race), there'd be no problem, the problem of today is there's no goal, we need a common goal that we'll work very hard for, and I believe that's what many major companies tries to achieve with the global warming stuff, etc.
Quote:
It is capitally immoral to force the halt of procreation on the populace.
I agree, but I think for other reasons than you.
Quote:
Immortality is a concept far too shrouded in mystery to consider a widely accepted option. Who knows how the human mind will adapt to a lifespan with no limit? Mental disorder will run rampant after 150, i'm betting. The reason why humans aren't immortal is the same reason we were created to age: human existence is a set interval in history. Sure, postponing inevitable shutdown is a prospect lucrative to many humans, but in the end, life will end in one way or another. In my beliefs, immortality cannot be attained by any means of science.
It's fine you've your opinions, but I've actually answered why what you write as impossible would be posible in my previous posts.
Quote:
All in all, the prospect of life is defined by its finity.
No it's not, read one of the links I gave, you define life the way you want it, and don't define it for others please, we can do it ourself.
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 01:38 PM |
|
|
This is an interesting discussion, especially thanks to the way different people react to the topic. I do not find it too surprising, that people may find the idea of immortality attractive.
When you break it down, the issue of immortality is linked to the vainest of human fears - the fear of death. It is all just a vain attempt to cheat death and nature. And this has been going on forever.
Immortality is the shortsighted vision of humans. Immortality implies, something eternal and eternalness itself, is something that escapes us even more. Can anyone really, truly understand something without and end without going mad?
I guess my main question ,and point, is, why the hell would someone want to achieve immortality?
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 02:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I guess my main question ,and point, is, why the hell would someone want to achieve immortality?
You're quite right, it's because of the fear of death I want immortality for all those who wants it.
Quote:
Can anyone really, truly understand something without and end without going mad?
Well I can, I can however not imagine death, earlier I imagined it as eternal darkness, like you were locked in a room where you couldn't see, but that's still too much, given death is the worse possible imho.
Because there cannot be any senses, but not only that, there can't be any counsciousness, which means nothing, nothing at all, forever, it's impossible for me to imagine, no counsciousness, I've only experienced counsciousness, because if there's no counsciousness, there's no me, and that makes no sense to me.
Some may believe it's like a dream less sleep, but even there's a counsciousness, because you're still alive, no one knows if there's anything after death, and it's because of the risk of there being nothing at all forever (no counsciousness ever again, no soul if you like) that makes me want to seek immortality.
Finally let me ask this, if you at any point of time had the question to choose between death and life, what would you choose? If you choose life to any time, then it's the same as living forever.
And again you may think there's a lack of global view in this, but again I do not believe overpopulation would be a problem for reasons I already wrote.
So my question to you, why'd you want death? Or do you maybe think there's still something afterwards, some bit of counsciousness, a bit of memory, an eternal darkness so you're actually there, there's just nothing else than you? It may be so, but there's a risk of there being nothing at all, which is much less than what I wrote in my questions.
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 02:42 PM |
|
|
Humanity have always desired to achieve something inaccessible - to fly, to breath under water. Maybe it's natural desires. Maybe on the other hand each single person want to be a superman thinking that immortality is cool in comparison to normal mortal people. Maybe the idea is that the life is good thing so it should be longer then possible.
Life is like computer game, bad-planned but the graphics is awesome.
____________
Your advertisement could be
here only for 100$ per day.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 02:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Life is like computer game, bad-planned but the graphics is awesome.
Hence the high number of um... 'heroes' at the Tavern every day and night.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 03:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You're quite right, it's because of the fear of death I want immortality for all those who wants it.
Exactly my point, it is nothing but the fear of death. All I can say it would be a foolish choice, in my oppinion far worse than death.
Quote:
Well I can, I can however not imagine death, earlier I imagined it as eternal darkness, like you were locked in a room where you couldn't see, but that's still too much, given death is the worse possible imho.
Because there cannot be any senses, but not only that, there can't be any counsciousness, which means nothing, nothing at all, forever, it's impossible for me to imagine, no counsciousness, I've only experienced counsciousness, because if there's no counsciousness, there's no me, and that makes no sense to me.
True, one cannot imagine death, as it is something that goes out of our concept of existence as death for us means the end of the TIME of our life and time (and space) is our main domain. Therefore you cannot imagine death.
But same goes with eternity. If you accept eternity, it meas that time in reality does not move, as movement has a start and and end, but that time stands still (or is cyclical) which again goes out of our concept of the understanding and exploring our world.
Quote:
Some may believe it's like a dream less sleep, but even there's a counsciousness, because you're still alive, no one knows if there's anything after death, and it's because of the risk of there being nothing at all forever (no counsciousness ever again, no soul if you like) that makes me want to seek immortality.
I do not know what lies beyond the end of our lifetime and yes there is a risk that there may be nothing. I do not know, but in a way I want to find out, as I believe that this is the answer to the question of our existence.
Quote:
Finally let me ask this, if you at any point of time had the question to choose between death and life, what would you choose? If you choose life to any time, then it's the same as living forever.
I believe that death is a nesseceary part of nature and therefore of our lives as well, just as life is. Without death there is no life. (at least our understanding of it)
Quote:
So my question to you, why'd you want death? Or do you maybe think there's still something afterwards, some bit of counsciousness, a bit of memory, an eternal darkness so you're actually there, there's just nothing else than you? It may be so, but there's a risk of there being nothing at all, which is much less than what I wrote in my questions.
I plainly accept death for what it is - the most important part of nature. Death and our concept of it represents the end of a time period. And as I repeat, time is the main dimension in which we identify the world around us.
Immortality on the other hand, is absolutely unnatural for me even illogical. Why would you want to endure the torment of one lifetime forever? Life is meant to end and then you are meant to understand what is beyond. There is no escaping it. And many times it is something absolutely necessary. (Just think back to Tolkien Elves and their envy of human mortality).
Personally if I knew that there was no end to my life, I would spend all my time finding a way to end it eventually.
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 11, 2009 03:49 PM |
|
|
Good post, I agree with a lot of things, but I do also disagree with a lot of things, the structure makes it easy to answer.
Quote:
Quote:
You're quite right, it's because of the fear of death I want immortality for all those who wants it.
Exactly my point, it is nothing but the fear of death. All I can say it would be a foolish choice, in my oppinion far worse than death.
Yes that's your opinions, but as you do state:
Quote:
I do not know what lies beyond the end of our lifetime and yes there is a risk that there may be nothing. I do not know, but in a way I want to find out, as I believe that this is the answer to the question of our existence.
You do not know, which is why your opinion should not be forced down on anyone.
I can follow you want to know and risk your very existance for this knowledge, I however won't if I have the choice, and I believe that's what differs us.
Beside I think everyone makes up their own meaning of existence, the idea of a common meaning or a already prethought meaning is for me absurd, and for others very realistic, it's something that splits many appart.
Quote:
But same goes with eternity. If you accept eternity, it meas that time in reality does not move, as movement has a start and and end, but that time stands still (or is cyclical) which again goes out of our concept of the understanding and exploring our world.
I disagree with this, that's not the way I see time, and I do not believe every movement needs an end, and if you insist then you can always define an end to every movement as you wish, because time is infinite does not mean that parts of it does not exist.
Quote:
Quote:
Finally let me ask this, if you at any point of time had the question to choose between death and life, what would you choose? If you choose life to any time, then it's the same as living forever.
I believe that death is a nesseceary part of nature and therefore of our lives as well, just as life is. Without death there is no life. (at least our understanding of it)
I understand, and in my understanding (I don't recall if I wrote this before) life, or existance is not dependent of death. If you read some of the very first links I give in the very first post of this thread you'll see there exist animals that are believed not to age, they're alive (at least in our definition of the word), but they do not age.
Quote:
Quote:
So my question to you, why'd you want death? Or do you maybe think there's still something afterwards, some bit of counsciousness, a bit of memory, an eternal darkness so you're actually there, there's just nothing else than you? It may be so, but there's a risk of there being nothing at all, which is much less than what I wrote in my questions.
I plainly accept death for what it is - the most important part of nature. Death and our concept of it represents the end of a time period. And as I repeat, time is the main dimension in which we identify the world around us.
Immortality on the other hand, is absolutely unnatural for me even illogical. Why would you want to endure the torment of one lifetime forever? Life is meant to end and then you are meant to understand what is beyond. There is no escaping it. And many times it is something absolutely necessary. (Just think back to Tolkien Elves and their envy of human mortality).
I'd like to suggest that you read the link I gave on the "myth" part, which explains why we've no reason to accept death as something natural.
Secondly you can define natural on several ways, but either everything would be natural (or they wouldn't exist) or stuff like cell phones aren't natural as well, but everyone still uses those.
Quote:
Personally if I knew that there was no end to my life, I would spend all my time finding a way to end it eventually.
Which you'd always be free to do.
|
| |
|
|
